johnwk
Member

In the Bostock v. Clayton County case Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, June, 2020, lied to the American People with regard the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case involved three business owners who made business decisions to let go an employee based on their sexual deviant behavior and conduct. Gorsuch found they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by simply asserting the word “sex”, found in the Act, not only applies to the male and female gender, but also applies to sexual behavior and conduct. Of course, Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Senator Howard who added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, was to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace. But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex, and thus, adding “sex” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in and of itself, was an assumption of power not granted to Congress. In fact, a number of attempts have been made over the years to grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit distinctions in the workplaces being made based upon sex. in the 1920s an “Equal Rights” amendment was proposed to be added to the United States Constitution which would have, if adopted, granted the legislative power to Congress, i.e.,

. In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020. As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.” Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:

In regard to the legitimacy of today’s Senate impeachment trial and Senator Leahy acting as judge, jury and prosecutor, let us never forget that Madison describes such circumstances as follows: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny ".. . . Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47 Perhaps that is why our wise founding fathers commanded in our Constitution “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” ___and not a communist/socialist inspired Senator who derides an America First Policy and now presides over an individual who advocates and America First Policy. So, all those Democrats and Republican Senators, who voted in favor of this trial, have not only violated their oath of office, but are now willing accomplices in an act of tyranny. JWK